Luddly Neddite
Diamond Member
- Sep 14, 2011
- 63,947
- 9,980
- 2,040
Not Eating Meat Can Cut Your Food-Related Carbon Emissions Almost In Half, Study Finds | ThinkProgress
Studies Sound Red Alert On Beef's Global Warming Toll | ThinkProgress
It really is easy. Just don't eat it.
And, we all know its a lot healthier and a very easy way to lose weight.
Best of all, you're not causing the horrendous cruelty of the meat industry.
If youre trying to reduce your carbon footprint, you may want to think twice next time you reach for a burger. According to a new study, people with a high-meat diet contribute more than twice the diet-related greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere as a vegan, and a little less than twice the emissions of a vegetarian.
The study, published in the journal Climatic Change, looked at the diets of 55,504 people in the U.K., who took a survey asking them how many times per year they ate 130 different foods. The researchers then placed the people into groups of high, medium, and low meat-eaters, along with fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans, based on their responses to the survey. They found that, on average, meat-eaters contributed 46 to 51 percent more food-related greenhouse gas emissions than fish eaters, 50 to 54 percent more than vegetarians and 99 to 102 percent more than vegans. The difference between high meat-eaters and vegetarians and vegans was even more distinct high meat-eaters contributed an average 7.19 kg of CO2 equivalent each day, while vegetarians contributed 3.81 kgCO2e and vegans contributed 2.89 kgCO2e.
The study also noted that health benefits often came with choosing to eat less meat the researchers noted significant trends toward higher intake of fiber and fruits and vegetables and lower intake of saturated fat as animal-based foods decreased in diets. The study, the researchers write, illustrates that eating less meat, even on the individual level, can help reduce carbon emissions.
This work demonstrates that reducing the intake of meat and other animal based products can make a valuable contribution to climate change mitigation, the researchers write. Other work has demonstrated other environmental and health benefits of a reduced meat diet. National governments that are considering an update of dietary recommendations in order to define a healthy, sustainable diet must incorporate the recommendation to lower the consumption of animal-based products.
Studies Sound Red Alert On Beef's Global Warming Toll | ThinkProgress
The best way to cut your food-related carbon footprint is probably not to eat any meat, but if youre not willing to go that far a new study breaks down the greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) of different types of meat and beef is by far the worst.
Research published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has found that livestock emissions are on the rise and that beef cattle are responsible for far more GHGs than other animals, including chicken and pork. Meat productions heavy environmental toll is not new, but the scale is surprising: The study found that beef requires 28 times more land to produce than pork or chicken, 11 times more water, and results in five times more GHG emissions.
A similar study published in the journal Climate Change this week found that from 1961 to 2010 global GHGs from livestock increased 51 percent. Much of this is due to increased demand for meat, especially in developing countries. So even as developed countries curtail demand and become more efficient producers, the scale of the problem is growing along with global GHG concentrations.
The developing world is getting better at reducing greenhouse emissions caused by each animal, but this improvement is not keeping up with the increasing demand for meat, said Dario Caro, a researcher on the study. As a result, greenhouse gas emissions from livestock keep going up and up in much of the developing world.
Researchers found that beef and dairy cattle account for just about three-fourths of livestock-related GHG emissions, with 54 percent coming from beef cattle and 17 percent from dairy cattle. This is partly due to the sheer abundance of the animal but also from the higher levels of methane and nitrous oxide that they emit. Sheep comprised nine percent, buffalo seven percent, pigs five percent, and goats four percent.
On an energy-required-per-calorie assessment, pork, poultry, and eggs have roughly the same degree of environmental cost, and dairy is comparable as well.
It really is easy. Just don't eat it.
And, we all know its a lot healthier and a very easy way to lose weight.
Best of all, you're not causing the horrendous cruelty of the meat industry.